An elegant answer to the over-complicated tax system is to shift the basis of the system from income to spending. There have been a variety of proposals to make this happen. It’s the core of the so-called Fair Tax and Herman Cain incorporated its concept into his 9-9-9 tax plan. Other proposals have called for a value-added tax similar to the system in the United Kingdom.

Working to earn a living contributes to society, as does investing in businesses. Taxes on income, whether wages or dividends, could discourage this type of economically-beneficial activity. Consumer spending also benefits the economy, though, and if this tax system discourages spending, it might have a negative effect on the economy initially.

Also, lower-income households and those who live paycheck-to-paycheck would bear a higher burden. When almost all of a family’s income is spent, this family would be taxed on a high percentage of their income. On the other hand, a corporate executive earning more than a million dollars does not need to spend all of his money. His tax burden is more affordable. Under today’s tax environment, someone with the means might put money into real estate, invest in businesses, and shelter assets in offshore accounts. Under the new system, a wealthy individual might stay away from buying houses if those transactions are taxed, while bringing more offshore assets back to the United States.

Rather than adding a national sales tax to determine consumption, one solution is to report all income, as is currently done, as well as all contributions to savings, just like what is done for IRA and 401(k) accounts. The difference between income and savings would be the basis on which the government levies the consumption tax. There could be a high standard deduction applied to the difference, so that lower-income families who are struggling to save do not need to pay an unaffordable tax bill, and so that the system remains progressive.

Reforming the tax system away from income tax is a tall order. Thanks to deductions for tax-advantaged savings, the income tax system has already begun to shift towards a focus on spending, but if you believe that the system could be vastly improved by focusing solely on consumption, the system has a long way to go before workers and savers aren’t punished by a tax collection system.

Would you prefer a tax system based solely on consumption?

Photo: exfordy
New York Times, Slate

{ 16 comments }

It’s no surprise that politicians have difficulty relating to their constituents. When Mitt Romney was asked about his finances, he admitted two facts that would sound strange to most listeners.

• Romney considers what he earned from speaking fees in one year, $362,000, as “not that much.”
• Like most individuals who earn most of their income from investments, Romney’s effective tax rate is closer to 15 percent.

For Romney $362,000 may not be that much. His net worth is estimated to be between $85 million and $265 million. The most that income from speaking can increase his net worth each year is by 0.4%. That is a drop in a very large bucket. I can understand why Romney would say that this amount is not that much. For him, it’s practically nothing.

For most people, though, $362,000 is a significant amount of money. This small portion of Romney’s annual income could support ten families or more of four members for one year. “Not that much” is relative.

When President Obama proposed the Buffett Rule, a tax on millionaires to pay a representative share of the tax burden, he had people like Romney in mind. Buffett has pointed out that his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary’s, and this happens when most of an individual’s income comes from investments. Investment income, like dividends, as well as carried interest, is taxed at a 15 percent rate rather than the sliding scale used in the tax brackets for ordinary income. People who earn high enough salaries and wages pay higher tax rates than individuals who make a living off investments.

To compare Romney with his political peers and competitors, Governor Rick Perry has indicated his effective tax rate in 2010 was 23.4 percent, and that rate is closer to what most middle-class Americans might pay in any one year. Rick Perry is the least wealthy of all the presidential hopefuls, with a net worth between $1 million and $2.5 million. President Obama and his family paid an effective tax rate of 25 percent in 2010.

How does your effective tax rate compare to Mitt Romney’s?

Update: ABC News just broke the story that Mitt Romney has made judicious use of an offshore tax haven in the Cayman Islands to shelter his assets from the U.S. Treasury.

Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him — and Bain — with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizens for Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated $100 billion a year because of tax havens.

Christian Science Monitor, ABC News

{ 37 comments }